Help

This subforum is for critical evaluation of Wikipedia articles. However, to reduce topic-bloat, please make note of exceptionally poor stubs, lists, and other less attention-worthy material in the Miscellaneous Grab Bag thread. Also, please be aware that agents of the Wikimedia Foundation might use your evaluations to improve the articles in question.

I think there's actually reason for optimism this time. Some of the "heavy hitters" are clearly fed up, and maybe this whole Fuzzy Zoeller business has affected their thinking somewhat - there's going to be a LOT of scrutiny of WP's BLP policies and procedures over the next couple of weeks, and deleting this now will help them enormously on that score.

I just wonder what we'll talk about here once that article is gone... Anybody know any good bran-muffin recipes?

I think there's actually reason for optimism this time. Some of the "heavy hitters" are clearly fed up, and maybe this whole Fuzzy Zoeller business has affected their thinking somewhat - there's going to be a LOT of scrutiny of WP's BLP policies and procedures over the next couple of weeks, and deleting this now will help them enormously on that score.

Wales and company must be quite relieved that Wikipedia was not listed as a defendant. But I suspect that if one quietly asked the plaintiff it may have been more to do with not wanting to suffer the image of being the guy who takes on (and perhaps down) WP than any legal hand-waving about section 230.

Anyways, a reasonable prediction of the theory is a spike in AFD's for borderline bios begins soon. Definitive evidence being an WP:BLP edit to the effect of "subject deletion requests honored".

This is an excellent opportunity for Wales to actually assert some executive authority.

Well, so far they're holding a clusterfuck over where the real clusterfuck should be held. The sleeper issue here is the super secret admins-only IRC channel. Can one deletion lead to 3 CFs on the same day? How about 4?The third CF

This post has been edited by No one of consequence: Fri 23rd February 2007, 5:46pm

Well, so far they're holding a clusterfuck over where the real clusterfuck should be held. The sleeper issue here is the super secret admins-only IRC channel. Can one deletion lead to 3 CFs on the same day? How about 4?The third CF

Look Jimbo wading in is probably a bad idea... we all know a fiat declaration will not be a popular thing.

The best thing that could happen is a public discourse at DRV (and not AFD) concludes with a keep deleted. the community at large (and quite a few of the admins) dont think the article is worth it.

Some likely voted delete/keep deleted in hopes they'd get off the hivemind, others because they feel brandt is non notable. Me its because i'm sick of seeing common sense fail to overcome the wiki-lawyering process.

So best of luck to you DB... hopefully the status quo of delete... remains the status quo.

The best thing that could happen is a public discourse at DRV (and not AFD) concludes with a keep deleted. the community at large (and quite a few of the admins) dont think the article is worth it.

Some likely voted delete/keep deleted in hopes they'd get off the hivemind, others because they feel brandt is non notable. Me its because i'm sick of seeing common sense fail to overcome the wiki-lawyering process.

While this is a solution to this article, it isn't a globally optimal solution. What this is, is an instance where sustained retaliation and pressure resulted in an article being removed. Most individuals who end up in Brandt's situation do not have the time or research ability to do this. A consistent policy that allows for intermediately notable people to opt-out of Wikipedia would be a fairer solution. While it would be difficult to craft, it would allow for more consistency in this current grey area. Wales shouldn't have to intervene every time in such situations nor should admins have to take on the risk of being very WP:BOLD as Yanksox did.

There should be a request for opt-out means which results in a way to confirm the request is authentic and then triggers an AfD. In that AfD people then argue whether or not the individual meets the higher degree of notability required in order to keep the article against the wishes of the article's subject. If a non-notable individual then becomes more public one can initiate another discussion of whether the individual is deserving of a Wikipedia bio. Thus integrating into the standard AfD policy framework a means of opting-out.

The best thing that could happen is a public discourse at DRV (and not AFD) concludes with a keep deleted. the community at large (and quite a few of the admins) dont think the article is worth it.

Some likely voted delete/keep deleted in hopes they'd get off the hivemind, others because they feel brandt is non notable. Me its because i'm sick of seeing common sense fail to overcome the wiki-lawyering process.

While this is a solution to this article, it isn't a globally optimal solution. What this is, is an instance where sustained retaliation and pressure resulted in an article being removed. Most individuals who end up in Brandt's situation do not have the time or research ability to do this. A consistent policy that allows for intermediately notable people to opt-out of Wikipedia would be a fairer solution. While it would be difficult to craft, it would allow for more consistency in this current grey area. Wales shouldn't have to intervene every time in such situations nor should admins have to take on the risk of being very WP:BOLD as Yanksox did.

There should be a request for opt-out means which results in a way to confirm the request is authentic and then triggers an AfD. In that AfD people then argue whether or not the individual meets the higher degree of notability required in order to keep the article against the wishes of the article's subject. If a non-notable individual then becomes more public one can initiate another discussion of whether the individual is deserving of a Wikipedia bio. Thus integrating into the standard AfD policy framework a means of opting-out.

Well, it comes down to who actually would want to lookup info about Daniel. No offense, but I highly highly doubt Daniel's going to make Time or Fortune or any sort of public figure list anytime soon. The article was mostly kept because some people were strongly opposed to the tatics Daniel had used, and they wanted "revenge."

On the bright side, I think give it a couple more days and with the way it's going I can close the DRV as endorsed (it'd be too big of an uproar if I did it now and someone would likely wheel war over it...)

Regardless of HOW the article was deleted, the fact that it was deleted doesn't really solve the problem. Daniel was slandered by months by Wikipedia and its editors. Just because they're yanking the article doesn't fix any of that.

If I were Daniel, I'd expect a public apology from Jimbo right now. And I'd also expect to receive some sort of settlement for damages.

So, I don't think that this really ends anything. It's just a step in the right direction.